Jump to content
lazlo_80

CPL new teams speculation

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Watchmen said:

I'm not sure why so many people assume attendance is going to go up this year. Last year had the novelty of new league/new team for all the cities involved. That will be there for a bit this year, but results are going to matter more. We saw attendance dropping for teams last year when it was clear they were poor. No reason to think that won't happen again this year, and with out the "novelty factor" to help prop some teams up. 

I expect Valour's attendance to be down next season. But that is a local issue and may not reflect the overall CPL trend. You'd have to think that a lot of teams have a lot of potential fans to work with, even without the year one novelty factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

Edited by Ansem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

Did you read the links? The sanctions are regularly not enforced or softened on appeal.

Anyways, the City case is not even a FIFA ruling, so the argument is still lame. 

And it also ignores a key factor in these recent years of sanctioning teams for not fulfilling financial fair play or rules for signing kids: internal politics.

UEFA is under pressure from major clubs who only have their own sources of income, and federations who do not have clubs with huge foreign injections of capital, who want clubs like City and PSG to be closely monitored, since they are doing just what City has been condemned for: falsifying income and injecting capital from outside sources. 

Where is there any internal pressure of any worth on Concacaf from clubs or national federations? Would Concacaf cave in on the three MLS clubs in Canada to appease the CSA? Those arguing this are being tendentious and completely misunderstand how the club and federation rivalries work in Europe.

The post also completely miscontrues how football governance works in a federated model.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Did you read the links? The sanctions are regularly not enforced or softened on appeal.

Anyways, the City case is not even a FIFA ruling, so the argument is still lame. 

And it also ignores a key factor in these recent years of sanctioning teams for not fulfilling financial fair play or rules for signing kids: internal politics.

UEFA is under pressure from major clubs who only have their own sources of income, and federations who do not have clubs with huge foreign injections of capital, who want clubs like City and PSG to be closely monitored, since they are doing just what City has been condemned for: falsifying income and injecting capital from outside sources. 

Where is there any internal pressure of any worth on Concacaf from clubs or national federations? Would Concacaf cave in on the three MLS clubs in Canada to appease the CSA? Those arguing this are being tendentious and completely misunderstand how the club and federation rivalries work in Europe.

The post also completely miscontrues how football governance works in a federated model.

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

1) No, we started at you insisting that CONCACAF and FIFA will definitely enforce Article 73 before you drifted in to "maybe they won't".  I've been of the opinion since the start that "they might not bother because it's not worth it", on the assumption that it would be worse for them to try to enforce it, go to CAS, and possibly lose.  This is not the same as "FIFA would never dare touch MLS".  The 3 MLS clubs in Canada is not worth it to them to fight.

2) Yes, I brought up a CAS ruling recently about how the US and Australia were viewed as being different from other federations for just this point of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ansem said:

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

Yes, this is where we very, very definitely differ.  A lot of us don't think they'll act, because it's not worth it to either CONCACAF or FIFA to do so.  You think they will.

I think I'm going to say we're just going to have to agree to disagree here and let this argument die.  There's no new evidence that's going to be coming forward any time soon, and it's killing this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ansem said:

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

What I am saying is that first, you'd have to have internal pressure in Concacaf. From powerful clubs and from associations/federations, pushing the regional federation to act. If they could make a strong argument for it, they'd have FIFA's backing. 

There is no evidence that would happen. What clubs right now could make an argument they are being discriminated by the 3 MLS teams in Canada? What national federation?

I cannot envision any scenario where a similar argument as seen now in UEFA, of breaking rules of fair play, could be applied in Concacaf. In fact, having a WC shared by three federations goes in the opposite direction of what is being argued: how can you argue for a tendency towards national exclusivity when for the first time ever, FIFA has broken the pattern of one-federation exclusivity for WC hosting?

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

Sounds like a ******* shakedown to me. All the big clubs probably have lobbiests that "liaison" with these governing bodies and it seems Man City naively didn't allocate their budget appropriately to satisfy this department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

1) No, we started at you insisting that CONCACAF and FIFA will definitely enforce Article 73 before you drifted in to "maybe they won't".  I've been of the opinion since the start that "they might not bother because it's not worth it", on the assumption that it would be worse for them to try to enforce it, go to CAS, and possibly lose.  This is not the same as "FIFA would never dare touch MLS".  The 3 MLS clubs in Canada is not worth it to them to fight.

As with the Fury, the teams must demonstrate how they meet the exceptional clauses under Article 73 which falls into a few major categories:

(1) clubs that are in close proximity to another member’s territory and have been long-standing members of the other league

(2) clubs that have moved because of political conflict or civil war in their homes countries

(3) clubs located in member associations where there isn’t currently a professional league

(4) clubs in disputed territories

Option 3 no longer applied to the Fury due to CPL and unfortunately for them, they had to renew yearly. Once the waiver is up our 3 clubs will have to demonstrate how they meet the exceptions.

it's actually CONCACAF ruling that's setting the precedent here with how they treated the Fury when they stated that they don't recognize exceptional clause on the Fury which they didn't appeal to CAS. That precedent strengthens CONCACAF & FIFA.

Will CONCACAF enforce Article 73? I believe they will. They aren't simply going to extend the waiver, clubs MUST apply for sanction and has to be signed on by FIFA. 

Will the 3 clubs appeal it? Maybe.

Will CAS side with them? Unlikely if FIFA choose to interpret their rule to ensure that cross-border leagues are kept strictly to exceptional circumstances which is in their interest.

19 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

2) Yes, I brought up a CAS ruling recently about how the US and Australia were viewed as being different from other federations for just this point of argument.

But the analysis of the ruling that I posted earlier on states that FIFA is free to interpret their own rules however they like and CAS is unlikely to do it for them hence Silva losing.

Silva interpreted the rule and FIFA opted to articulate their own interpretation which isn't just about FIFA. I remember this coming up on the Balsillie v. NHL where the judge stated the same. 

It comes down to what FIFA wants. Did they want to force Australia and MLS in pro/rel? No, most likely more trouble than it's worth with negligeable ramifications to the rest of their structure.

If FIFA choose to ensure that cross-border leagues doesn't happen, then they'll argue about their own interpretation of their own rule and they'll win. Is it in their interest to enforce the rule? I believe it is. What's preventing Super Leagues so far is mainly Article 73, applying it consistently makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansem said:

As with the Fury, the teams must demonstrate how they meet the exceptional clauses under Article 73 which falls into a few major categories:

(1) clubs that are in close proximity to another member’s territory and have been long-standing members of the other league

(2) clubs that have moved because of political conflict or civil war in their homes countries

(3) clubs located in member associations where there isn’t currently a professional league

(4) clubs in disputed territories

Option 3 no longer applied to the Fury due to CPL and unfortunately for them, they had to renew yearly. Once the waiver is up our 3 clubs will have to demonstrate how they meet the exceptions.

it's actually CONCACAF ruling that's setting the precedent here with how they treated the Fury when they stated that they don't recognize exceptional clause on the Fury which they didn't appeal to CAS. That precedent strengthens CONCACAF & FIFA.

Will CONCACAF enforce Article 73? I believe they will. They aren't simply going to extend the waiver, clubs MUST apply for sanction and has to be signed on by FIFA. 

Will the 3 clubs appeal it? Maybe.

Will CAS side with them? Unlikely if FIFA choose to interpret their rule to ensure that cross-border leagues are kept strictly to exceptional circumstances which is in their interest.

But the analysis of the ruling that I posted earlier on states that FIFA is free to interpret their own rules however they like and CAS is unlikely to do it for them hence Silva losing.

Silva interpreted the rule and FIFA opted to articulate their own interpretation which isn't just about FIFA. I remember this coming up on the Balsillie v. NHL where the judge stated the same. 

It comes down to what FIFA wants. Did they want to force Australia and MLS in pro/rel? No, most likely more trouble than it's worth with negligeable ramifications to the rest of their structure.

If FIFA choose to ensure that cross-border leagues doesn't happen, then they'll argue about their own interpretation of their own rule and they'll win. Is it in their interest to enforce the rule? I believe it is. What's preventing Super Leagues so far is mainly Article 73, applying it consistently makes sense

When do you see this happening? I’m not sure how long is left in the present waiver... but when it expires (especially if it expires soon) I wonder if Concacaf might not just decide to extend it one final time to give the CPL more time to get its level up and to also simultaneously give the big 3 notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

When do you see this happening? I’m not sure how long is left in the present waiver... but when it expires (especially if it expires soon) I wonder if Concacaf might not just decide to extend it one final time to give the CPL more time to get its level up and to also simultaneously give the big 3 notice. 

Ansem lives in their own world and hopes that it will happen one day. I don't think one can expect that to happen, but I'm pretty sure that option 1 is a possibility. We're talking about clubs that have been in MLS for 9+ years. It's not clear what long-standing means, but it could be argued that 9+ years in a 25 year old league is long-standing. So, sure it could be debated, but I doubt that they would do the same as long as MLS is that much better than CPL..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the obsession with getting the MLS teams into CPL. 

As I see it, a league with 10 or 12 or even 14 teams with an average attendance at around 6 or 7 thousand remains compatible with the MLS teams averaging just over 20 thousand. It also enables an ownership group to seek a club in the catchment area of an MLS side without that being seen as direct competition.

That is better than wiping out the fan base and the scale of MLS in Canada, as I see it. Better to have both, apart from the fact that it is a way to hedge our bets, to not put all the eggs in one basket. 

I personally don't think this league will actually get to 14 teams, or to anything close to a national D2. Nor do I think we'll ever see promotion and relegation, though if they were smart they could use results to rank for the Voyageurs Cup, just to add an incentive for late season play. My ambitions are modest, but hey, a stable 12-team league plus 3 MLS teams, not bad.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

What I am saying is that first, you'd have to have internal pressure in Concacaf. From powerful clubs and from associations/federations, pushing the regional federation to act. If they could make a strong argument for it, they'd have FIFA's backing. 

There is no evidence that would happen. What clubs right now could make an argument they are being discriminated by the 3 MLS teams in Canada? What national federation?

Reapplying for sanctioning triggers the federation to review the application. Up until CPL, it was virtually automatic but as the Fury learned, CONCACAF will seriously study applications to play in another Association league

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

In fact, having a WC shared by three federations goes in the opposite direction of what is being argued: how can you argue for a tendency towards national exclusivity when for the first time ever, FIFA has broken the pattern of one-federation exclusivity for WC hosting?

Sharing a WC, which was done in Asia before and national leagues are different matters. The whole point of "Champions Leagues" is having the champions/best teams of different countries facing off. Confederations are highly protective of that model as it's a main source of revenue for them. 

The fact that there's no "Super League" in any Confederations is proof of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ams1984 said:

When do you see this happening? I’m not sure how long is left in the present waiver... but when it expires (especially if it expires soon) I wonder if Concacaf might not just decide to extend it one final time to give the CPL more time to get its level up and to also simultaneously give the big 3 notice. 

I'm thinking post 2026 World Cup. Miki Turner said that he was told by people "in the know" how long was the waiver. Someone said "40 years" to which he answered "much shorter".

TFC has 13 years in the league while I believe Montreal and Vancouver are 8-9 years in. Even if we went with half of the 40 years, that brings TFC to 2027, that's why I always say "post 2026".

TFC will have to demonstrate how they fall under the exception. The clause that was used in their case was not having a top tier domestic league. They won't be able to argue that anymore.

What could happen is CONCACAF renewing their sanction but refusing the long term waiver, meaning that just like the Fury, CONCACAF would reevaluate the situation on a yearly basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackdude said:

Ansem lives in their own world and hopes that it will happen one day. I don't think one can expect that to happen, but I'm pretty sure that option 1 is a possibility. We're talking about clubs that have been in MLS for 9+ years. It's not clear what long-standing means, but it could be argued that 9+ years in a 25 year old league is long-standing. So, sure it could be debated, but I doubt that they would do the same as long as MLS is that much better than CPL..

That will be interesting to see if that argument holds or not.

Fyi, I was told that lived in my own world when I said 

-There would be pro/rel when the CPL was style a project...I was right

-That CONCACAF would end Fury's sanctioning... I was right

I'm not always wrong you know. There's no fantasy in what I'm talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I don't get the obsession with getting the MLS teams into CPL

No obsession here. I'm very patient and I think everyone is waiting for the waiver to expire to see what happens.

Miki Turner even said how a denial of sanctioning would play out and that was ahead of the Fury exist...which was 100% the same as for the Fury... (sell franchise and restart) or (Relocation)

This is a post 2026 scenario. Like it or not, that waiver will expire

23 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

As I see it, a league with 10 or 12 or even 14 teams with an average attendance at around 6 or 7 thousand remains compatible with the MLS teams. It also enables an ownership group to seek a club in the catchment area of an MLS side without that being seen as direct competition.

That is better than wiping out the fan base and the scale of MLS in Canada, as I see it. Better to have both, apart from the fact that it is a way to hedge our bets, to not put all the eggs in one basket. 

I personally don't think this league will actually get to 14 teams, or to anything close to a national D2. Nor do I think we'll ever see promotion and relegation, though if they were smart they could use results to rank for the Voyageurs Cup, just to add an incentive for late season play.

We'll have to wait and see. If they are able to stay in MLS for a longer period of time or forever than that will be FIFA'S decision and we'll all have to live with that. 

Such scenario would definately see CPL pull the trigger and enter the cities in my opinion.

They could 

A) 1 CPL club per cities

B)fractionig the cities by allowing multiple clubs (instead of a Toronto CPL --> Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, MTL West Island, Downtown Montreal etc...) smaller scope but clubs that could promote to Premier League eventually 

Edited by Ansem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I'm thinking post 2026 World Cup. Miki Turner said that he was told by people "in the know" how long was the waiver. Someone said "40 years" to which he answered "much shorter".

TFC has 13 years in the league while I believe Montreal and Vancouver are 8-9 years in. Even if we went with half of the 40 years, that brings TFC to 2027, that's why I always say "post 2026".

TFC will have to demonstrate how they fall under the exception. The clause that was used in their case was not having a top tier domestic league. They won't be able to argue that anymore.

What could happen is CONCACAF renewing their sanction but refusing the long term waiver, meaning that just like the Fury, CONCACAF would reevaluate the situation on a yearly basis. 

I’d actually really like to see this happen, but only so long as it didn’t jeopardize the continued existence of those three clubs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

I’d actually really like to see this happen, but only so long as it didn’t jeopardize the continued existence of those three clubs. 

The problem is that it's highly unlikely that they would be allow to retain their IP unless they have it as an out clause.

They'd lose their name and brand normally but the ownership could quickly relaunch under a new brand and name. It's pretty much the same employees and infrastructure at the end of the day.

Take TFC who paid $10M to buy into MLS. They are now worth $245M as of today. By 2030 they could be worth 30 times that...so they'd be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The problem is that it's highly unlikely that they would be allow to retain their IP unless they have it as an out clause.

They'd lose their name and brand normally but the ownership could quickly relaunch under a new brand and name. It's pretty much the same employees and infrastructure at the end of the day.

Take TFC who paid $10M to buy into MLS. They are now worth $245M as of today. By 2030 they could be worth 30 times that...so they'd be fine.

I’ve seen some crazy things posted here but what ...? A team in a league losing money is going to be worth over 7 billion in 10 years?  😂😂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

I’ve seen some crazy things posted here but what ...? A team in a league losing money is going to be worth over 7 billion in 10 years?  😂😂

 

30 times their initial investment...I'm not that bad in math 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The problem is that it's highly unlikely that they would be allow to retain their IP unless they have it as an out clause.

They'd lose their name and brand normally but the ownership could quickly relaunch under a new brand and name. It's pretty much the same employees and infrastructure at the end of the day.

Take TFC who paid $10M to buy into MLS. They are now worth $245M as of today. By 2030 they could be worth 30 times that...so they'd be fine.

Well, if it ever does happen, let’s hope that they can work out a deal with MLS to keep their IP... 

The Whitecaps and MTL existed as brands before they entered MLS. I wonder if that’d have any bearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I cannot envision any scenario where a similar argument as seen now in UEFA, of breaking rules of fair play, could be applied in Concacaf. In fact, having a WC shared by three federations goes in the opposite direction of what is being argued: how can you argue for a tendency towards national exclusivity when for the first time ever, FIFA has broken the pattern of one-federation exclusivity for WC hosting?

7 hours ago, Ansem said:

Once the waiver is up our 3 clubs will have to demonstrate how they meet the exceptions.

it's actually CONCACAF ruling that's setting the precedent here with how they treated the Fury when they stated that they don't recognize exceptional clause on the Fury which they didn't appeal to CAS. That precedent strengthens CONCACAF & FIFA.

Will CONCACAF enforce Article 73? I believe they will. They aren't simply going to extend the waiver, clubs MUST apply for sanction and has to be signed on by FIFA. 

Will the 3 clubs appeal it? Maybe.

Will CAS side with them? Unlikely if FIFA choose to interpret their rule to ensure that cross-border leagues are kept strictly to exceptional circumstances which is in their interest.

But the analysis of the ruling that I posted earlier on states that FIFA is free to interpret their own rules however they like and CAS is unlikely to do it for them hence Silva losing.

Silva interpreted the rule and FIFA opted to articulate their own interpretation which isn't just about FIFA. I remember this coming up on the Balsillie v. NHL where the judge stated the same. 

It comes down to what FIFA wants. Did they want to force Australia and MLS in pro/rel? No, most likely more trouble than it's worth with negligeable ramifications to the rest of their structure.

If FIFA choose to ensure that cross-border leagues doesn't happen, then they'll argue about their own interpretation of their own rule and they'll win. Is it in their interest to enforce the rule? I believe it is. What's preventing Super Leagues so far is mainly Article 73, applying it consistently makes sense

Just want to point out that WC 2002 was held in both South Korea and Japan, so there's previous precedent. The CAS ruling against Silva vs MLS regarding Pro-Rel stated that MLS is a closed league of clubs that paid for the privilege to join and FIFA did not appeal is another precedent. The recognition that the US and Australia are special cases is yet another. Law is built on previous precedents and I don't think FIFA is going to take on a case that will drain organization funds if it doesn't think it can win. They would probably argue that money spent on litigation would be better spent on helping poorer countries developing the beautiful game (or lining their own pockets). Heck, they might even consider forcing a move of the Canadian MLS clubs to be detrimental to the development of soccer in this country and fight against it.

Ansem, I understand your desire to have the MLS clubs join CanPL as a means of ensuring the new league's sustainability and your desire to not appear inferior to the two big CONCACAF Leagues. But I feel that the desire of MLSE is not to be confined to a smaller stage and they have the pockets to make it unpalatable for FIFA to go after them. CanPL is meant to develop Canadian talent, MLS wants to become a top 5 world league and appears to be offloading it's development of players (even those through it's academies) to USL (except for the really cheap owners). Cascadia clashes have over 40 years of history. You really think Whitecaps (or their supporters) want to give that up? TFC-Impact clashes are one of the most intense rivalries in the MLS Eastern Conference and I don't think MLS (and especially TSN) wants to lose that.

If FIFA invokes Article 73 expect a long, drawn out legal process where the only winners will be the lawyers.

Edited by Initial B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding FIFA and precedents, FIFA is based in Switzerland where they have civil law not common law. Our (Canadian ex-Quebec) understanding of legal matters may not hold for Swiss law. Please note, I have taken one course in business law so, to say the least, am no legal expert.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...